[klyrs]

Italian American here, my mom wasn't considered "white" until she was an adult. That was then, I'm white now. Did you read the article? I'm not sure it counts as "baiting for clicks" when he spends half of the article talking about the history and structure of the American caste system and how SBF's (perceived) status as a white male impacted his trajectory. I don't think it's bait, when it's the thrust of the essay.

[richbell]

> how SBF's (perceived) status as a white male impacted his trajectory. I don't think it's bait, when it's the thrust of the essay.

It's provocative and dishonest for him to not once acknowledge SBF's privileged circumstances or well-connected family, something which directly aided in his success and that the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to replicate. The post is generally well-written and makes some salient points, but it's obvious that the author shoe-horned in SBF. A different person, like the topically relevant Elizabeth Holmes, may have made a more cohesive argument.

> It's still clearly provocative to suggest Bankman-Fried's Stanford educated, genuinely "privileged" upbringing as the son of well known Stanford professors is somehow reflective of hundreds of millions of people rather than his own circumstances. Doing something for clickbait doesn't somehow make it not provocative.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33662014

[klyrs]

What? The article talks specifically about his upper-crust background and his professor parents. You're the one laser-focused on race here. You got triggered by the headline, and you missed the forest for the trees.

[richbell]

> What? The article talks specifically about his upper-crust background and his professor parents.

It vaguely alludes to his parents being upper-class Stanford law professors. It does not specifically talk about SBF's father being an influential law professor and scholar[0], SBF's mother leading a powerful democratic PAC[1], SBF's brother having worked on Capitol Hill and the "Democratic Party-aligned consulting firm Civis Analytics"[2][3] — let alone Caroline Ellison's alleged family connections. I am not insinuating that there's a grand conspiracy theory — this should all be taken with a grain of salt — my point is that SBF's unique personal circumstances gave him access to capital and connections in government and industry that were pivotal to his success.

It would be like saying that the disgraced "DreamWorld" project was able to scam thousands of people and receive funding from Y Combinator because the founder was an upper-class white male; there's obviously a grain of truth in that statement, but it's a dishonest portrayal of events because it does not mention that his co-founder was friends with someone at Y Combinator and that perceived endorsement was what lead so many people to trust the project.

[0] https://twitter.com/JagoeCapital/status/1590805884556673024/...

[1] https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/1/6/21046631/mind-the-gap-si...

[2] https://archive.ph/GndX4

[3] https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/guarding-against-p...

> You're the one laser-focused on race here. You got triggered by the headline, and you missed the forest for the trees.

I did not get "triggered by the headline", I read the entire article and pointed out that it fails to acknowledge SBF's personal privilege and family connections because the author was dead-set on writing an article about race and needed an archetype — he literally admits to this in the article.

) I have been itching to write this essay for some time, but lacked a foil and context to make it relevant to my readers.

As I've said in another comment it's a worthwhile read, but his explanation of why SBF was able to dupe so many people falls a bit flat.